Idk I still don’t think Piker becoming basically somebody who candidates are forbidden from criticizing is a good thing considering some of the off color nonsense he’s said
I'm sorry, but the framing of the tweet is ridiculous. Primary voters are not the same as party rank and file in many cases, and the concept that the whole base believes one thing, when a primary challenger is winning but not by a landslide, is such a fundamental misunderstanding of politics I'm not sure where to start. As with Espaillat, primarying a relatively progressive but not outspoken member of congress with someone with 0 experience and little common sense is just digging the whole this country is in even deeper.
I'm disagreeing with the framing of the result by the last paragraph. I didn't assume anything about what you meant, as I was specifically attacking the tweet, apologies if they came off as personal. I'm not going to engage with the rest of this.
If they vote in the general election, yes. The rank and file includes both those who consistently vote whenever possible, and those who consistently vote in general elections and tend to skip primaries.
Minorities have low turnout rates to begin with, so in many primaries it must be even lower. Definitely still a core part of the Dem coalition since they support the party by significant margins (black 85%, Asian/Latino/others around 65%) in general elections.
Agree with you here. Also don't understand the purpose of this tweet, it adds very little value and is just some random person's reaction.
Also, if I remember from my days on DKE, that twitter user was an abrasive "purity progressive" who believes that "if you do not agree with certain views 100%, you are a traitor."
A suspicious amount of undecideds there. I'd be absolutely shocked if Moulton could beat Markey. It's a different, anti-incumbet time but if Kennedy couldn't do it, Moulton certainly can't.
Markey's age is a serious liability that he lacked in 2020. On the other hand, Moulton is a much weaker opponent than JPK3 was. Rough estimation, I'd say they more or less balance out.
Leaves Moulton a very real underdog but not with zero chance.
My hope/assumption is that the undecided voters are a group that doesn't like Moulton as a person and doesn't like Markey's age. If that's an accurate assessment, I expect Markey to win that group in net when they finally make a decision -- it's easier to get to "yes" with a candidate with flaws that a voter likes versus their opponent the voter dislikes.
Ayotte seems to be the last blue state (or at least moderately blue) Republican governor that likes Trump, but I just can't get behind Warmington's opioid lobbying. It sucks that she's the nominee.
I'm actually willing to believe it as a poll rather than as a prediction of the November outcome.
AES is getting good coverage right now, causing him to get good polls and then more good coverage. Stevens is not getting much of any coverage good or ill. McMorrow's only coverage right now seems to be about how she is falling further and further behind in the primary. Which is disappointing to me as she was my preferred candidate, but it is what it is.
With that balance of media attention, I'd believe a poll would find that AES is doing better in the poll and that people are more likely to say they'd vote for him than his primary opponents. I think he'd do worse than them in the actual general, but polling better today is plausible.
No it doesn't. Nobody gets to 50 in any of the head to heads. Not saying I'm sold on the result, just that it's technically possible as a result without any voters in the category you mention.
It was not clear to me. I agree that anti-establishment Dem candidates are on the rise, but nothing structurally has changed to allow it -- voters simply want something different now.
The whole article is interesting. What was really interesting was another linked article about Trump not in a rush to confirm more judges or other nominees like Labor Secretary, while Senate idiots like Ted Cruz and Tommy Tuberville are complaining about judicial seats not getting filled.
Would be nice if the Senate flipped this fall, so that Schumer can pull a McConnell with future judicial nominees. Although that appearance by Clarence Thomas on TV last night makes me think he's retiring this year.
If Democrats flip both House and Senate in November, they're going to be in no mood to cooperate with Rs during their lame duck period. Esp if Rs want to confirm a fourth SCOTUS judge.
I assumed they meant passing the next budget in the fall. Congress never passes those on time anymore so mini-CRs through early November is not a bad bet. And maybe-hopefully senate democrats would grow enough of a spine to filibuster anything long-term if we win big.
There are areas of Colorado that have more progressive Democratic primary electorates than Denver (some of the ski resort areas like Vail and Aspen come to mind), but any progressive running statewide in Colorado would have to run up a fairly big margin in Denver to offset more moderate-friendly areas like the Denver suburbs and Colorado Springs.
As I mentioned on Threads this morning, I think these Democratic insiders all of a sudden playing up the possibility of DeGette losing the CO-1 primary just to lower expectations among DeGette supporters.
I think you're probably right, as long as there isn't so much residue of bitterness among the supporters of the primary losers that it costs the party seats they otherwise might have won, which I think has been the fear on many people's parts.
I guess the final margin will depend on the Hispanic pushback - the Rio Grande valley as well as several Hispanic-majority areas (i.e. part of Houston) have swung hard to the right since 2018.
eh, let everyone run their own race. They probably both need to be seen as independent pols who will break from the party when needed for either of them to win.
As a West Virginian, I feel for Becky Pepper-Jackson and others affected by this. Even as someone from another city, I saw a lot of local discourse about her. I mentioned that I knew someone who almost got kicked out of WVU for making a negative post about her.
I doubt we play this right but SCOTUS has handed Dems a gift here. Now that they have to actually try and enforce this order and Dems can harangue them with "REPUBLICANS WANT TO CHECK YOUR TEENAGER'S GENITALS"
I don't think this is a winning issue for us. It may be morally imperative for us to take a position on it but, strictly politically speaking, we should stay as far away from it as possible.
You don't think it's a winning issue that Republicans want some rando to do a genital inspection for every teenage athlete over... 10 NCAA trans athletes? The Party of Pedophilia wants to drag kids into a room and make sure they have the right parts. Nail them to the walls with this.
No I don't think that's a winning issue. The people who are motivated by this sort of stuff don't vote for us. I'm not saying it's not utterly ridiculous, bigoted and a waste of everyone's time. I'm saying that, politically, it's a loser.
I'm of the mindset that they're going to keep bringing it up, so take a negative and turn it into a positive by making the topic so untenable every time they bring it up that they STFU about it because it bring up uncomfortable truths to keep bringing it up and then pivot back to economic issues.
SCOTUS struck down the Trump ban on birthright citizenship. 6-3 ruling written by Roberts, joined by Sotomayor, Kagan, Jackson, Barrett, and Kavanaugh.
Meanwhile it seems that Kavanaugh is playing spin the beer bottle to decide how he votes on any particular ruling. Not a reliable vote, but he can surprisingly be reasonable at times. Perhaps not as much as Barrett though.
Kavanaugh actually concurred/dissented. He concurred that the executive order was unlawful, but not that the plain text of the Fourteenth Amendment means what it says, only that it was barred by statute. So on the Constitutional question it was 5-4.
Honestly, this does us a favor. if it was 8-1 or 9-0, then we would have to deal with endless thinkpieces about how moderate the Supreme Court actually is all through the summer.
His opinion is hilarious in the context of him supposedly being an “originalist.” He basically declares Wong Kim Ark wrong for limiting the exceptions because he feels like the 14th amendment wasn’t meant to be as solidly written as it clearly was. Total nonsense on his part.
Hick wins by 10
Idk I still don’t think Piker becoming basically somebody who candidates are forbidden from criticizing is a good thing considering some of the off color nonsense he’s said
I have my doubts Kiros's lead holds. But Weiser looks good.
I hope the message is we won’t blow a swingy house seat with Rutinel.
I'm sorry, but the framing of the tweet is ridiculous. Primary voters are not the same as party rank and file in many cases, and the concept that the whole base believes one thing, when a primary challenger is winning but not by a landslide, is such a fundamental misunderstanding of politics I'm not sure where to start. As with Espaillat, primarying a relatively progressive but not outspoken member of congress with someone with 0 experience and little common sense is just digging the whole this country is in even deeper.
I'm disagreeing with the framing of the result by the last paragraph. I didn't assume anything about what you meant, as I was specifically attacking the tweet, apologies if they came off as personal. I'm not going to engage with the rest of this.
If party rank and file don’t vote in primaries are they really party rank and file?
If they vote in the general election, yes. The rank and file includes both those who consistently vote whenever possible, and those who consistently vote in general elections and tend to skip primaries.
Agree with DS here.
Minorities have low turnout rates to begin with, so in many primaries it must be even lower. Definitely still a core part of the Dem coalition since they support the party by significant margins (black 85%, Asian/Latino/others around 65%) in general elections.
Agree with you here. Also don't understand the purpose of this tweet, it adds very little value and is just some random person's reaction.
Also, if I remember from my days on DKE, that twitter user was an abrasive "purity progressive" who believes that "if you do not agree with certain views 100%, you are a traitor."
No we’re not. Massachusetts Dems will go with the more progressive candidate. And that’s Ed Markey.
A suspicious amount of undecideds there. I'd be absolutely shocked if Moulton could beat Markey. It's a different, anti-incumbet time but if Kennedy couldn't do it, Moulton certainly can't.
Markey's age is a serious liability that he lacked in 2020. On the other hand, Moulton is a much weaker opponent than JPK3 was. Rough estimation, I'd say they more or less balance out.
Leaves Moulton a very real underdog but not with zero chance.
My hope/assumption is that the undecided voters are a group that doesn't like Moulton as a person and doesn't like Markey's age. If that's an accurate assessment, I expect Markey to win that group in net when they finally make a decision -- it's easier to get to "yes" with a candidate with flaws that a voter likes versus their opponent the voter dislikes.
Ayotte seems to be the last blue state (or at least moderately blue) Republican governor that likes Trump, but I just can't get behind Warmington's opioid lobbying. It sucks that she's the nominee.
I'll actually say cargo plane of salt. El-Sayed isn't getting 5% or over and McMorrow isn't losing by 7%.
I'm actually willing to believe it as a poll rather than as a prediction of the November outcome.
AES is getting good coverage right now, causing him to get good polls and then more good coverage. Stevens is not getting much of any coverage good or ill. McMorrow's only coverage right now seems to be about how she is falling further and further behind in the primary. Which is disappointing to me as she was my preferred candidate, but it is what it is.
With that balance of media attention, I'd believe a poll would find that AES is doing better in the poll and that people are more likely to say they'd vote for him than his primary opponents. I think he'd do worse than them in the actual general, but polling better today is plausible.
This poll implies the existence of prospective El-Sayed-Stevens-Rogers voters, who I refuse to believe exist.
No it doesn't. Nobody gets to 50 in any of the head to heads. Not saying I'm sold on the result, just that it's technically possible as a result without any voters in the category you mention.
They always go hard at the end of the quarter. Checked my spam and I've gotten 12 texts today alone, and I'm not a big donor.
"May the candidate with the most votes win. That’s how democracy should always work and the Democratic Party shouldn’t be any different."
What is this in reference to?
It was not clear to me. I agree that anti-establishment Dem candidates are on the rise, but nothing structurally has changed to allow it -- voters simply want something different now.
I read that as tied in Denver county, not tied in the whole state.
The whole article is interesting. What was really interesting was another linked article about Trump not in a rush to confirm more judges or other nominees like Labor Secretary, while Senate idiots like Ted Cruz and Tommy Tuberville are complaining about judicial seats not getting filled.
https://www.politico.com/news/2026/06/29/senate-nominations-judges-labor-trump-00977929
Would be nice if the Senate flipped this fall, so that Schumer can pull a McConnell with future judicial nominees. Although that appearance by Clarence Thomas on TV last night makes me think he's retiring this year.
Trump likes playing the president on TV. He doesn't seem to like actually doing real work as president.
I think we underrate how much Trump 1.0 was really McConnell running the show from the Senate
Expect another record breaking shutdown come December.
December for what?
If Democrats flip both House and Senate in November, they're going to be in no mood to cooperate with Rs during their lame duck period. Esp if Rs want to confirm a fourth SCOTUS judge.
Right, but they won't actually flip either House until January.
I assumed they meant passing the next budget in the fall. Congress never passes those on time anymore so mini-CRs through early November is not a bad bet. And maybe-hopefully senate democrats would grow enough of a spine to filibuster anything long-term if we win big.
There are areas of Colorado that have more progressive Democratic primary electorates than Denver (some of the ski resort areas like Vail and Aspen come to mind), but any progressive running statewide in Colorado would have to run up a fairly big margin in Denver to offset more moderate-friendly areas like the Denver suburbs and Colorado Springs.
As I mentioned on Threads this morning, I think these Democratic insiders all of a sudden playing up the possibility of DeGette losing the CO-1 primary just to lower expectations among DeGette supporters.
https://www.threads.com/@a.apollo.c/post/DaNEOA7lnnL?xmt=AQG0PtUoE4_uvC2qJEJwMcRFSuLzih_FFLUSDiOrFqz07g
It’s good to see these progressive candidates run actual campaigns again rather than just buying some TV ads and calling it a day
Excellent take! I hadn't even thought of that, but you're 100% right.
I think you're probably right, as long as there isn't so much residue of bitterness among the supporters of the primary losers that it costs the party seats they otherwise might have won, which I think has been the fear on many people's parts.
I don't know what the data show in individual races.
Texas Siena:
Talarico 47 Paxton 47
Abbott 51 Hinijosa 45
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/06/30/us/politics/texas-senate-poll-talarico-paxton.html
C'mon, Gina. Close that gap further.
R+6 generic ballot. That would be worse than 2018 (when it was R+ 3.4).
I guess the final margin will depend on the Hispanic pushback - the Rio Grande valley as well as several Hispanic-majority areas (i.e. part of Houston) have swung hard to the right since 2018.
Talarico should campaign with Hinojosa. That might help her a bit polling wise.
eh, let everyone run their own race. They probably both need to be seen as independent pols who will break from the party when needed for either of them to win.
Sure but Hinojosa also has some time to close the gap.
Looks like pollsters are missing the mark and playing it far too safe again.
It’s my first day as a paid subscriber…appreciate what you guys do!
SCOTUS ruled in favor of the trans athletes ban. As expected.
And striking down yet another campaign finance regulation.
That ruling has some very limited potential upside in wrestling party control back from super PACs though that horse may have long left the barn
The bigger issue is that right-wing zillionaires now get access to candidate rates for TV ads
I thought broadcasters were pushing back on that? I haven't seen anything definitive on how rates are going to work.
As a West Virginian, I feel for Becky Pepper-Jackson and others affected by this. Even as someone from another city, I saw a lot of local discourse about her. I mentioned that I knew someone who almost got kicked out of WVU for making a negative post about her.
Terrible.
I doubt we play this right but SCOTUS has handed Dems a gift here. Now that they have to actually try and enforce this order and Dems can harangue them with "REPUBLICANS WANT TO CHECK YOUR TEENAGER'S GENITALS"
I don't think this is a winning issue for us. It may be morally imperative for us to take a position on it but, strictly politically speaking, we should stay as far away from it as possible.
You don't think it's a winning issue that Republicans want some rando to do a genital inspection for every teenage athlete over... 10 NCAA trans athletes? The Party of Pedophilia wants to drag kids into a room and make sure they have the right parts. Nail them to the walls with this.
No I don't think that's a winning issue. The people who are motivated by this sort of stuff don't vote for us. I'm not saying it's not utterly ridiculous, bigoted and a waste of everyone's time. I'm saying that, politically, it's a loser.
I'm of the mindset that they're going to keep bringing it up, so take a negative and turn it into a positive by making the topic so untenable every time they bring it up that they STFU about it because it bring up uncomfortable truths to keep bringing it up and then pivot back to economic issues.
SCOTUS struck down the Trump ban on birthright citizenship. 6-3 ruling written by Roberts, joined by Sotomayor, Kagan, Jackson, Barrett, and Kavanaugh.
If three justices can ignore what the Constitution says plainly...
Honestly thought Gorsuch would've sided with the majority.
Me too. At oral arguments, he sounded very skeptical of the plaintiffs. But I guess conservative brain worms won out in the end.
Thomas and Alito are playing by Calvinball now. Whatever Trump says, they do, no matter what their prior decisions were or what the Constitution says.
Meanwhile it seems that Kavanaugh is playing spin the beer bottle to decide how he votes on any particular ruling. Not a reliable vote, but he can surprisingly be reasonable at times. Perhaps not as much as Barrett though.
Kavanaugh actually concurred/dissented. He concurred that the executive order was unlawful, but not that the plain text of the Fourteenth Amendment means what it says, only that it was barred by statute. So on the Constitutional question it was 5-4.
Honestly, this does us a favor. if it was 8-1 or 9-0, then we would have to deal with endless thinkpieces about how moderate the Supreme Court actually is all through the summer.
The bottom line vote was still 6-3.
His opinion is hilarious in the context of him supposedly being an “originalist.” He basically declares Wong Kim Ark wrong for limiting the exceptions because he feels like the 14th amendment wasn’t meant to be as solidly written as it clearly was. Total nonsense on his part.